Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:MZMcBride/Socking

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was Deleted by user. A few people recommended privately to delete the page. Their opinions seem reasonable. --MZMcBride (talk) 22:09, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:MZMcBride/Socking[edit]

This is a guide on how to violate policy. It should be deleted as such. Chillum 19:49, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You should be deleted [1]? Being a sock yourself? ;-) --Avant-garde a clue-hexa Chord ² 19:51, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

hehe Typo corrected. Thanks for pointing that out. Chillum 19:52, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is not "Don't put beans in your nose", it is "Put beans in your nose, use this type and here is how you hide it from your mom". Chillum 20:44, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - needs more lulz , but most of what's in here is fairly common sense (if there's any "sense" in socking, of course). it's not like MZM explained how to do any of the more technical stuff required to effectively sock. –xeno (talk) 19:57, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment How many "bad" subpages does MZMcBride have? Can someone nominate them all so we can be sure none of the evilness is left? Thanks, Majorly talk 20:02, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - it's a bit BEANSy, but whatever. Is there anyone out there - especially any long-term sockers - that don't know all this already? A lot of this is already up on mediawiki.org, under the checkuser pages, etc - Alison ^❤ 20:20, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, User:Kristen Eriksen and User:Mantanmoreland failed to absorb these messages. Training better generations of sock puppeteers is not a legitimate use of user space. Cool Hand Luke 20:50, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per Xeno. WP:BEANS is fine, but MFDing the pages of a well-established user is a bit pointless unless they're actually damaging the encyclopedia. Stifle (talk) 20:22, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First off, helping sock puppets not get caught does damage the encyclopedia. Secondly, how established does one need to be before they are allowed to help people sock puppet? Chillum 20:38, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chillum, there are plenty of reasons why someone might need to use a sockpuppet. You, of all people, should know this. Majorly talk 20:40, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And the advice on avoiding check users? That is not really about making a fresh start, but to avoid scrutiny. I know the sock puppet policy and there are legitimate uses for socks, this goes well beyond that line. Chillum 20:42, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A well-written guide. If you think this is BEANSy, check out mw:User:MZMcBride/Going rogue. Majorly talk 20:26, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's for the lulz, see User:Giggy/Passing RfA for fun and profit!--Patton^t/c 20:31, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It could be renamed "making a clean start" and be legitimate advice to those who are stalked and too addicted to quit entirely --NE2 20:32, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Well as for his other subpages [2], the only other one that seems bad (I didn't read them all) is the going rogue and that's on another wikipedia project. I really think he should put this funny stuff on his own website and link to it instead. The "Going rogue" one is more to highlight security issues for the unpaid programmers to fix. The page "Socking" well it's kinda funny, but it's rather informative. The funniest part was in the "Talk with yourself" part that said, "That quickly raises suspicions, especially after a recent incident on the English Wikipedia." Hehe I think I know who he's talking about if he's talking about the stock market guy. Anyway, I really think he should host this stuff on his website. MZMcBride is an administrator so he can always retreive the content to host office if it's deleted and he didn't save it. Are you ready for IPv6? (talk) 20:34, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - As above, anyone with intermediate knowledge of TCP/IP and the CheckUser function probably knows how to do this and more. I doubt that keeping this page will lead to armies of undetectable sockpuppets being created. Richard ⁰⁶¹² 20:39, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The intention (for the lulz or what have you) is irrelevant: it's still beany. It's written in a way that would help disruptive users do their disrupting, and if it's "common sense" already, why should it even exist? It's certainly not helping any. -kotra (talk) 20:40, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete. What is the point? A guide on how to sock. Queenie ^Talk 20:45, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It is not universally-understood knowledge. If it were, we wouldn't have caught socks by these techniques. That MZMcBride wrote this page after the last one suggests that it's a WP:POINT violation. Any moment he will lecture us about how it's only bad because we've drawn attention to it. Cool Hand Luke 20:47, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep The lack of knowledge isn't what catches socks. It's that they are stupid. They edit during the same time ranges, they return to the same articles, they use the same browser. All that can be changed, some through simple changes in behavior, some through trivial technical measures. We act like this is all a big secret, but even the mechanics of the checkuser tool are open to anyone wiling to read the SVN or install a mediawiki distribution. Again, I find it interesting that this particular user has a number of sub-pages that don't seem to involve improving the encyclopedia. Protonk (talk) 20:49, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Cool Hand Luke. Protonk's final sentence is well worth repeating in light of recent events. //roux 21:05, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per CHL. Majorly talk 21:07, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I want to plagiarize Protonk here, but I won't. And continuing Roux's thought...he deletes a bunch of secret pages, but writes this? Pray tell me: what does more harm to the encyclopedia? The secret pages or a 'guide to socking'? I'd rather have five avid myspacers than this one page. —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 21:12, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and take a look at his other pages. If he's set them up for security reasons, there might be better places than this.--Avant-garde a clue-hexa Chord ² 21:14, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - All it is is just a major distraction, plus do we really want to HELP sockpuppets? The Cool Kat (talk) 21:15, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ignore: User has made his point. Ignore per WP:DENY — Ched (talk) 21:20, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this is humour, and there would be less trouble if socks did follow some of that advice! Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:23, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - beg pardon? It's a step-by-step guide on how to evade blocks, how to sockpuppet extensively, and generally how completely circumvent every rule we have in place about sockpuppetry. It's a Gr*wp how-to manual. I am completely baffled as to how you could think that telling sockmasters all these things will result in less trouble for the project. //roux 21:28, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Particularly "avoid double voting", and "Blatant mistakes and downright stupidity will just get more attention focused on you. Play it cool and you'll have no issues". A sock that does not cause disruption is nothing to fear. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:35, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - If the whole page was "good" advice like that, there would be no problem. However, most sockpuppeteers would only be interested in the technical means to avoid detection. -kotra (talk) 21:49, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, the page does not simple tell you how to protect your identity, but how to bypass check users. It suggests that you talk to yourself to throw people off the trail. There is a difference between using a sock puppet to protect your privacy, and using one to avoid scrutiny of your actions. Chillum 21:54, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.